In most national polls, when people are being asked whether they would be likely to vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate (not taking into account who those people would be), 50% said Democrat, 30% Republicans and the rest were undecided.
Yet, when you look at the polls, Hilary is barely beating Rudy. What does that say about the DNP's ability to nominate a viable candidate. Howard Dean should be fired!!
2007-06-18 08:32:14 · 12 answers · asked by Big Larry 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Lillie Sweet, I should rephrase. I am not saying Clinton or Obama aren't good people, and would not do a good job. They just should be doing better in the polls considering the anti-republican feelings in this country right now.
2007-06-18 08:44:22 · update #1
democrats are generally a spineless party, which is why i prefer to think of myself as a liberal, not a democrat.
obama looks promising though. i like that he still has some fire in his belly and hasn't spent so much time on capitol hill that he's forgotten who he's serving..
2007-06-18 08:37:11 · answer #1 · answered by BrightEyes 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question. The stats don't mean much, however, because they could just as easily mean this: MORE of the candidates for the Democrats are feasible, whereas only Giuliani is worth a pile of beans in the Republican arena. Truth is that NEITHER party can front a good candidate right now. Giuliani, when push comes to shove, will likely be shown to be the manipulating, lying, sneak who profitted off of the 9/11 attacks that he really is, and then anything can happen. Doesn't make Hillary the best choice, but it sure doesn't look good for either party. If anyone wants to run as an independent or third party, this is the election to do it.
2007-06-18 08:37:25 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think all the applicants decide for to proceed scuffling with terrorism and Al Qaeda of their actual base, Afghanistan. I too am aggravating that many applicants decide for the U. S. to desert Iraq... yet i would not call them appeasers. Richardson called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq... if that's what you're in contact approximately. Clinton and Edwards, on the different hand, proceed to assist the conflict in Iraq in one type or yet another
2016-10-09 11:30:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats have plenty of good candidates: Hillary, Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, just to name a few. John Edwards, however, will have to do some convincing for me to accept him, and not because of the stupid haircut thing. (Not to be confused with Biden's perennially awful hair.)
There is no Republican candidate worthy of my vote, since they all support Bush and his war. Except Ron Paul, whose views on government suggest to me that he's a different kind of lunatic.
2007-06-18 10:32:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats generally are favored over the Republicans with a few exceptions but it is early and the real campaign against the other side has not yet begun. Let us see what happens.
2007-06-18 08:38:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why anyone would vote for Clinton or Obama is lost on me. Neither side has stellar candidates but you are right. Most people would vote for a Republican before they voted for Hillary.
2007-06-18 08:36:48 · answer #6 · answered by only p 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Once the democrats decide on a candidate, those numbers you stated will change drastically. There is no good democratic candidate.
2007-06-18 08:35:59 · answer #7 · answered by amorudence 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have, her name is H. R. Clinton. She will do better than Bush and thats for sure. Hooray, the poor can once again have a voice. The seniors can once again feel as though they are wanted, Hooray, go H R Clinton.
2007-06-18 08:39:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Insightful question.
2007-06-18 13:29:48 · answer #9 · answered by grinninh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We'll see about that on election day.
2007-06-18 08:38:32 · answer #10 · answered by New Jersey Steve 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋